Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

newscloud writes "Tech writer Glenn Fleishman compares the arguments against affordable, high speed, broadband Internet access in each home to arguments made against providing for common access to electricity in 1900 e.g. '...electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community. It is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity, or gas, or oil in my house, or even that I use any form of artificial light at all.' Says Fleishman, 'Electricity should go to people who had money, not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone ... Like electricity, the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US. Sweden and Finland have already answered the question: It's a birthright.'"

Every generation acts as if it were the first to invent sex. Maybe it's because parents are so good at forgetting what they were like at 19... But every history geek ought to know that there were plenty of times in history when sexual mores were as free and relaxed as they are today. And no, your generation did not invent pictures of naked women either. Porn was around for as long as photography, and before that there were painters who could do much better than the porn you had in 1993. And heck, I bet cave

And heck, I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too, and had way more sex and you do today.

Well yeah. It's easier if you can club the female and drag her away when she says "no" as opposed to bowing your head in shame and returning to the table with the rest of your equally unlucky friends;)

The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights. But there were a few people out there (like Edison's lab and Tesla) that could see innumerable uses awaiting. The people just couldn't comprehend it or were rightfully dubious. I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time (probably even far before) just look at what Mark Twain was writing a decade before [pbs.org].

If we follow through with this analogy the solution is simple, you merely need to tell us about and convince us that the "inalienable right to broadband" will indeed herald a new era of empowerment--or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation. Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered. And you'd be out of your mind to ask a taxpayer in the farmlands to subsidize via tax dollars some infrastructure their not going to gain anything from.

But there were a few people out there (like Edison's lab and Tesla) that could see and profit from innumerable uses awaiting.

There, as is the custom on/., I fixed that for you. It's worth paying attention to who will profit from a massive rollout of new infrastructure. Your main point still remains valid, that the masses need to be convinced of all the new empowerment (pun intended?) they'll receive from the new technology, and I would simply add that part of that convincing needs to show how everyone can profit. If not everyone can profit, it might be socialism!

Bravo, sir, for backing into the real issue here - who "owns" the infrastructure. Like all utilities which must be delivered over a physical infrastructure that must be built within a limited right-of-way, or delivered over a limited band of the radio spectrum, the operation of a broadband infrastructure is a "natural monopoly". As such it needs to be heavily regulated, or better yet, owned and operated by the people it serves. Open it up to all comers as a platform to deliver service, but take away the ridiculous telecom monopolies.
Look, I can't speak to world where there is not a telecom monopoly, but I can when it comes to electricity. I come from a part of the country where the electricity (usually) delivered by a public utility. Service there is exemplary. I could count on one hand the number of outages in a decade. I now live in a place where one for-profit company owns the wires and there is a pretend "free market" when it comes to choosing electrical companies, all of whom "deliver" over the same infrastructure. The service is universally shitty. Brown-outs, surges, and outright blackouts are common weekly occurrences. The physical infrastructure is a joke. Poorly maintained would be generous description of it. This condition will not change because there's not enough money in doing it right and more importantly, because there is no alternative.
Again, when it comes to utilities, free market = fail.

Perhaps the writer overlooked this one little fact: Since when did we have a right to electricity? We don't. His argument is a non-starter.

It may not be an inalienable right guaranteed in the constitution, but it is a de facto right. Additionally, many states elevate it above simply de facto. Try renting an apartment to someone in Massachusetts without electricity http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr410.pdf [mass.gov] (warning, PDF):

Living in the rural Ozarks, we have decent broadband, with the exception of one provider that absolutely sucks.

It eventually comes down to property rights, though. The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else. Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.

It eventually comes down to property rights, though. The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else. Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.

The geek resident in the Ozarks is essentially the product of economic development projects funded by the federal government.

Here is a little bit about what the Wikipedia has to say about the Ozarks:

Ozark-St. Francis National Forest was created by proclamation of President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908. In 1939, Congress established Mark Twain National Forest at nine sites in Missouri. In 1976, Congress established Hercules-Glades Wilderness, the first of 13 designated wilderness areas in the Ozarks. In 1986, Congress established the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Oklahoma.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers lakes that were created by damming the White River beginning in 1911 with Lake Taneycomo have provided a large tourist, boating and fishing economy along the Missouri-Arkansas border. Six lakes were created by dams in the White River basin from 1911 through 1960.

The Lake of the Ozarks, Pomme de Terre Lake, and Truman Lake in the northern Ozarks were formed by impounding the Osage River and its tributary the Pomme de Terre River in 1931, 1961 and 1979 respectively. Grand Lake in Northeast Oklahoma was created in 1940.... Most of the dams were built for the dual purpose of flood control and hydropower generation.

The Buffalo National River was created by an Act of Congress in 1972 as the nation's first National River administered by the National Park Service. In Missouri, the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, was established in 1964 along the Current and Jacks Fork River as the first US national park based on a river system. The Eleven Point River is included in the National Wild and Scenic Riverways System established in 1968. These river parks annually draw a combined 1.5 million recreational tourists to the least populated counties in Arkansas and Missouri.

If cities and districts shall have equal broadband access then everyone should be able to get high-speed broadband with a minimum capacity if 50/10 Mbit/s and mobil broadband with minimum 8/1 Mbit/s.

-A well-developed broadband nett is a precondition for the development of welfare services, economical development in the districts, and to ensure all citizens equal access to information. Broadband is a fundamental infrastructure of society, equal with roads, water and electricity.

Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.

Sadly you are doubtless going to be modded troll, but really, what's wrong with this? If you want to live out in the rural sticks then you should be prepared to pay the cost of doing so. It will cost you more money in taxes, more money for running water (pump and septic system upkeep), your roads will be less maintained, you may not have access to cable and will have to rely on satellite, you'll pay more for energy (having oil or propane delivered vs. natural gas out of a permanent connection), more in gas money to get places, blah, blah, blah.

This notion of subsidizing lifestyles is really annoying. If you want cheap fast broadband move to civilization. If you want clean air and open spaces move to the country.

This notion of subsidizing lifestyles is really annoying. If you want cheap fast broadband move to civilization. If you want clean air and open spaces move to the country.

I'd expand on that and say that the notion of anti-subsidizing lifestyles is equally annoying. Adding taxes to 'unpopular' activities or products has the same effect of subsidizing the popular lifestyle.

If a tax were levied that placed a $1000 burdon on anyone who drives a red car, it is effectively a subsidy on the non-red car population. In this case, the non-red car population ends up $1000 ahead of the red car population.

I'd expand on that and say that the notion of anti-subsidizing lifestyles is equally annoying. Adding taxes to 'unpopular' activities or products has the same effect of subsidizing the popular lifestyle.

I'd concur with that. Vice taxes in particular annoy the hell out of me.

Well, when a significant portion of your population is becoming temporarily and/or permanently useless thanks to vice-related illnesses, the decision not to tax certain vices can become an anti-subsidy of its own.

Only if the people who aren't useless decide to support the people who are.

Vice taxes don't deter vices. They just cause more problems down the line. So now a particular subset of the population not only is addicted, but also is poor and perhaps driven to crime. Taxes are simply a means of revenue in this case, since the demand is inelastic due to addiction.

Vice taxes don't deter vices. They just cause more problems down the line. So now a particular subset of the population not only is addicted, but also is poor and perhaps driven to crime. Taxes are simply a means of revenue in this case, since the demand is inelastic due to addiction.

They are an insidious way to implement a tax hike as well.

Vice taxes cause the government to be dependant on the 'vice' activity, and thus the government has a vested interest in keeping that line of revenue open. It is why I oppose the 'Legalize it, Tax it' mantra that gets spread around regarding a certain product. I prefer to simply stop at the first goal.

What happens when your 'vice' is ended? Too often, vice taxes are used to fund activities unrelated to the ending of the vice, and therefore, if that revenue stream ends, then the government finds that it is now overbudget, and must either run a debt or raise taxes on everyone.

It is a convenient way to disguise a planned general tax hike and make it more palatable by targeting it at an 'unliked' minority. Then, either the minority continues to exist and pay extra taxes, or it ceases to exist, and the government is now overbudget.

Vice taxes don't tend to have much of an effect on the addicted (the addiction outweighs long-term financial concerns), but they tend to drive down usage of those not addicted, but using regularly. It can help prevent another addiction case.

It doesn't always work (especially if not carefully considered), and rarely if ever does it work perfectly, but it can have positive effects.

Well, when a significant portion of your population is becoming temporarily and/or permanently useless thanks to vice-related illnesses, the decision not to tax certain vices can become an anti-subsidy of its own.

Wait, whose population? I'm still very much independant and since no one owns me, I'd like to continue to decide what is best for me.

How much does the government own of me? Can I buy it back? May I not accept your generosity and therefore be exempt from your decision that I'm costing you too muc

This isn't the government we're talking about here, it's the general population. Yeah, and like it or not, they own a small piece of you. And you own a small piece of them.

You live in a society that has to work together, and your actions and choices have consequences to people beyond yourself. Sometimes, your choices may feel good to you, but they come at the expense of others.

Sometimes those consequences are so bad that the original choice is banne

So what does that have to do with the grandparent's complaints about subsidizing broadband to rural homes? And what is an "anti-subsidy"? If it is merely not paying someone for their economic choices, then it doesn't have the effect of subsidizing the popular lifestyle. Else every dollar you spend on something other than me is an "anti-subsidy" which I really wish you'd stop.

This guy has Lifestyle A. I have lifestyle B, and that guy has lifestyle C. A, B, and C pay the same amount of taxes.

In Europe this kind of thing is seen as helping the development of economically challenged regions. The EU has been spending lots of money on that kind of things for a while, and it started long before broadband. But BB is obviously now a part of the solution.

In Europe this kind of thing is seen as helping the development of economically challenged regions.

Just because a region is rural does not mean it's "economically challenged". Many of the households around here in the rural sticks are fairly well off -- they have to be in order to afford the insane property taxes levied in NYS. There are less well-to-do people in the rural sticks too but you can find them in the city just as easily.

In any case, what's the problem with having a "US-centric" view on an American political issue on an American website?

And yet every country in western Europe has these things so why cant every state in the US have them? It isn't as though cost and complexity go up exponentially with the size of your project (in fact, they should go down relative to size). Even if the cost spiralled out of control for large projects it would be trivial (compared to the other problems that we, as a nation, have dealt with over the years). Divide the effort into several small projects integrated together, probably similar to how it is done in Europe.

Even though the Scandinavian countries are less densely populated than many states in the US, they all have massive broadband infrastructure (100Mbps in some remote places). I live in a well-off, densely populated, city with a couple of Universities and a handful of colleges. I myself make a good dollar and I spend almost $150 with TWC every month. Yet, the best broadband I can get is 3Mbps which at most times has only 1Mbps available even though specific taxes are levied on my cable bill in order to expand their networks. The biggest problem is that VoIP, BitTorrent and streaming traffic gets throttled to about 300kbps and that this has been the case for the last 6 years I have been paying for their expansions with no notion of either costs going down or speeds going up or anybody I know that live in a rural area not so far away getting broadband any time soon.

You must be confused. We are talking about Northern Europe, not the North Pole. While it does get a little bit chilly and snowy in the Northern Finland during the winter, it's very much habitable.

Most of Finnish population outside the main capital area and the other few big "cities" (more like towns, really...) is quite well spread around the countryside. Yet we don't see the idea of providing fast internet access for everyone as an impossible task. Stop crying that it's impossible and that your problems are somehow unique in this world and try to do something about it.

As a native of NY (and a past resident of Missouri) I'm always amazed at how everyone thinks the entire state has the population density of NYC, Westchester or LI. Most of the population lives in less than 1/3 of the land area, and a good portion of the rest is clustered along the Thruways. Most of NY has population densities closer to the great plains or the west. And it may not be the Rockies, but it's not flat. Getting cable, DSL or fiber in some parts of the state is either next to impossible for fiendishly expensive, unless you're lucky enough to have a neighbor who paid for extending the trunk into your area.

As far as European population densities, most Americans do seem to think that the whole continent is like London, Paris or Frankfurt. I lived in Germany for 2 years and traveled extensively - there are lots of relatively unpopulated areas, and a lot of terrain that would pose challenges to power and comm networks, even in some of the most densely populated areas. So the usual arguments don't not hold up.

While true in some economically depressed areas, there are quite a few areas in the States where people choose to live to "get away from it all" (noise, pollution, crime, etc.) that are "out in the sticks" but not economically depressed. These seem to be the people who make the most noise about wanting broadband, paved roads, no critters eating their vegetable gardens, rapid emergency response, schools that teach advanced topics and not just agricultural subjects, etc. That is, they want all of the conveniences of city life while living in the country and they want the other rate payers to subsidize their lifestyle choice to make it happen.

I won't argue the merits of government intervention to provide additional services for disadvantaged areas. I will argue against blindly building out broadband given the above. Also, there are options such as satellite services that don't require any build out and are available regardless of location.

BTW, I live in an area (Colorado near Denver) where this debate keeps coming up. People keep moving out into what were once small farming communities to "get away from it all" but then make all sorts of noise because they still want some of the things that they didn't realize that they were also "getting away from." And, of course, they want the other rate payers to help them pay for it.

I understand that most of the population on/. is not rural, but your blatant stereotypical prejudices are amazing!"rural sticks?""move to civilization?"

I live in what you would call the "sticks". Do you think we live in shacks, don't wear shoes, and cook over the fireplace?I am lucky enough to not be one of those that "have to rely on satellite" , in fact I have the choice of DSL, Cable, and fiber to my house (I chose the fiber drop), I know that I am the exception, but let me straighten out a few other things...

Taxes are higher because I live out in the sticks? Really? I don't have to pay taxes / fees for any municipal offices or services, just county, and the last time a major tax hike was instituted, the entire incumbent county council was booted from office.I pay LESS for water than when i lived in "civilization"- I only have to pay for the power on my well pump. The septic system is well balanced and is basically no maintenance.Roads are maintained by the county, they get the same round robin updates as the rest of the county, except with less traffic, they are not as damaged.

There are competing LP distribution companies to keep LP costs in check, but we use energy star electrical appliances, so I can't comment on any cost/benefift analysis on LP/NG.

OK maybe it costs more in gas... nope.. S.C. has some of the lowest prices of gas in the country, and gas is usually 5-10c cheaper near my house than in the city.

So let me sum up:If you want clean air and open spaces and LOWER COST OF LIVING move to the country.

I understand that most of the population on/. is not rural, but your blatant stereotypical prejudices are amazing!

Your outrage is wasted. I grew up in the rural sticks. My town had a population of 500. It had so few people that not only did we have a single telephone exchange but we all had the same first four numbers, i.e: 895-6XXX. The nearest grocery store was 14 miles away. The nearest gas station 8 miles away. The nearest traffic light was 10 miles away and was only a flashing light at that.

Do you think we live in shacks, don't wear shoes, and cook over the fireplace?

Where did I say that?

Taxes are higher because I live out in the sticks? Really?

Around here they are. Most people who live in rural areas where I'm from do it so they can own a decent amount of land. Having a large amount of land in NYS will raise your property tax bill above and beyond that of someone in the city, even though you aren't paying for all of the services and extra government of the city.

OK maybe it costs more in gas... nope.. S.C. has some of the lowest prices of gas in the country, and gas is usually 5-10c cheaper near my house than in the city.

I don't know the particulars of your situation but my point was that you'll usually have to drive more by virtue of living in the country. My point wasn't that the price of gas is higher in the country. Driving more miles will cost you more in gas money.

I think that works if there's no inherent advantage to having the broadband over not having it.

Here in the UK if you file your tax return online you have extra time to get it in (the postal deadline is earlier), and while you don't need a broadband connection to do that you do actually need an internet connection. Government services having an advantage if done over the net is hardly a reason to subsidise internet for everyone, and we're not quite there yet with internet being required for a "standard" life

Are you seriously suggesting that the solution is that everyone just move to the city, and anyone who doesn't is either wanting to be subsidized for their lifestyle or should be forced to pay more for basic utilities?

Yes, if you want to live in rural areas you should be prepared to pay the full cost of doing so. It's bullshit to expect other people to give you money for free.

Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that some industries only exist in rural areas? Farming and agriculture, for example, is not going to happen in urban areas.

Then why don't the farmers charge more money for their product so they can pay for their higher utility costs? Why have the government step in as a middle man?

Economics, education, opportunity, feasibility of certain industries, security and yes sometimes cultural inclinations are among the many factors of why someone would live in rural areas.

Preaching to the choir. I grew up in a rural area and desire to move back to one. I just don't desire to have other people subsidize my expenses when I do so.

To say we can solve the problem by everyone moving out of rural areas is just boneheaded.

I think we may need a new word because "rights", at least in my humble opinion, don't lay an obligation on anyone else or society in general, to fund. If you desire to express yourself by yodeling on a street corner you come fully equipped to do so and society has no obligation to buy you a megaphone or lessons.

If anything, this issue is more about those asserting the right; about their assumption of a right to impose their views on others or assuage guilt for being relatively wealthier, then about those

If anything, this issue is more about those asserting the right; about their assumption of a right to impose their views on others or assuage guilt for being relatively wealthier, then about those who are supposed to enjoy the right to free internet access.

Who said it has to be free? In Finland, for example, you have the right to have access to an Internet connection in your home. No one said it needed to be free.

This is actually a big issue when talking about 'Rights' across national borders.

The US has historically stuck to negative rights (ie rights of non-interference). The virtue has been that the burden such rights impose upon others is limited (ie the government just has to not go out of its way to impinge upon your 1st amendment rights).

Internationally, a lot of 'rights' talk is based in some way on (or related to) the human rights movement and positive rights (the right to something which must be provided by someone). Such rights inherently impose an obligation upon some party which is far greater than an obligation to NOT do something. This works, to an extent, in European nations because they have 'big government' traditions.

If you are serious about bringing positive rights to the US, you need to have a serious plan for changing the consensus view in the US for the role of the state in the day to day lives of the citizenry.

If you are serious about bringing positive rights to the US, you need to have a serious plan for changing the consensus view in the US for the role of the state in the day to day lives of the citizenry.

And if there's any reason left in the world, you will fail.

Declaring something a "positive right" means you are declaring a "right" to a portion of someone else's life.

Differentiate between the right to get broadband and the right to get broadband cheaply. The former makes sense, and the latter is just uneconomic; an unjustified subsidy of rural areas by urban citizens.

It's quite easy to get guarantee that ~everyone~ can get ~some form~ of broadband. You just need a satellite or two. Two-way sat connections can provide pretty decent throughput to any spot in the country, which more than satisfies the definitions of 'broadband'. Expensive though... and the latency is terrible which makes it impossible to use for many of the applications you'd traditionally think of when you thought of a broadband connection.

I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.

If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it. Sure, there will be costs. But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation. I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit. It freezes for 5 seconds then goes through every button I pressed all at once.

I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit.

The market already provided a solution [tivo.com] to this particular problem. Yes, it'll cost you more, but most things worth having do. If you buy cheap (cable company DVR) you get what you pay for......

1 - Right to broadband.2 - Human right to broadband.3 - Human right to porn.4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe.

Yep. Wasn't that long ago one of my uncle's decided to give in to my aunt's request that he arrange for their house to have electricity, so he paid the electric company to run copper from the valley all the way up to the top of the mountain on which he lived --- and immediately after that, all the land along that lonely mountain road was bought up by people who promptly hooked into the wire which he had paid for --- didn't get a kickback from the electric company or anything (it wasn't even a co-operative unfortunately), just lots of neighbors which he didn't really want.

You need not go back to electricity; phones will do. We have already decided that communications are something we need to deliver to everyone, and the internet is the new communications medium.

Arguably, the government should stop promoting television and radio, and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet... railroading connections and returning "DISASTER IN PROGRESS" errors, whatever. Then we could [eventually] reclaim all spectrum used by broadcast media for a more noble use: bidirectional communications permitting collaboration between humans. It's not like the shitty ol' push media can't be distributed via internet.

Building a system for delivering such messages couldn't possibly go wrong... except I remember all the spam that came to my Windows boxes back in the day before I turned off the service for NET SEND messages (ironically most of the spam was from people trying to sell the directions for turning off NET SEND messages).

I, for one, can't wait until C3r34l_K1LL3r hijacks the INTERWEBS EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM and says to everybody 'for more details on the current disaster, go to goatse.cx immediately!' H

Electricity is not a right. It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.

If electricity is a right like free speech then at some point maybe we'll get to cut off free speech because it's a right just like electricity. Forget to pay your free speech bill and off it goes.

We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator. In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.

We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men "rights."

"Materialism" is not a right. You do not have a right to stuff. Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money. They are intangible.

You do not have a right to tangible things. They cost money. All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.

"Right of access" is the issue here. There were communities who would've paid for electricity if the power company had been willing to run a line to them, much like there were people who would've paid for sewerage or clean water if the infrastructure had been provided, and much like there are people who would pay for internet access if the lines were laid out. They still have to pay for the service.

Electricity is not a right. It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men "rights."

You may have not thought to consider what We gave the power companies. The People, in granting right-of-ways and providing a limited monopoly for the product gave up some of their tangible wealth in the form of unencumbered land and pseudotangible rights in the form of our right to associate with a different company.

The trade-off for ceding these collective assets/rights is something that we negotiated in the form of universal access.

"Materialism" is not a right. You do not have a right to stuff. Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money. They are intangible.

You do not have a right to tangible things. They cost money. All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.

Wow, contradictory much? Arms are tangible items. I have to buy I gun one isn't guaranteed to be given to me at birth.

This is actually a great example of the 'rights' to electricity and to broadband. The right doesn't mean you will get it, it means you will be able to get it. Just like your right to bear arms doesn't mean you will at all time walk around with weapons, it means that you have the right to purchase, own, and use weapons within the law.

The right doesn't mean you will get it, it means you will be able to get it.

Not quite. It doesn't mean you will be able to get it—the government isn't required to sell you a gun even if no one else will. Rather, it means that the government can't interfere with your right to make/acquire, possess, and use weapons per se. They are permitted to interfere with attempts to harm other citizens, of course, but that is entirely independent of the weapon(s) used (if any). Similarly, the right to free speech doesn't mean they are obligated to provide you with a forum, but rather that

This is what amuses me about America. In one post, you argue without a hint of irony that a) rights are endowed by a creator, and not inventions of man; and b) you have the right to bear arms.

But more seriously, I would take exception to your argument that rights are not given by man. It is only by becoming civilised that we can share equal rights. No matter how loudly you shout about your rights, they only exist if others recognise and respect them.

The problem with positive rights is that they cannot be guaranteed except at the expense of other rights. Commodities and services are not superabundant abstract goods in the manner of negative rights; someone has to provide them. More specifically, to the extent that you rely on their status as "rights", someone must be forced to provide them, thus violating their right to self-determination—which includes both self-ownership and ownership of property. For this reason the positive-rights aspects of t

Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money.

Ok, I'll preface this with noting that, yes, I'm Canadian so feel free to dismiss my thoughts as those of a (as an American friend likes to joke) "tree-hugging Commie". You put free speech along side the right to bear arms as inalienable and "intangible" rights that do not cost money. The right to bear arms? Are you kidding me? You want the government to start handing out guns for free because it is a right that you were given by birth?

"Materialism" is not a right. You do not have a right to stuff. Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money. They are intangible.

If the common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money, then why do you include the right to have weapons on your list? Last time I checked, they were far from free, and shouldn't be on your list at all. Furthermore, I'm going to ignore all of your god talk, because t

When this Country was created and you
wanted to share your views and exercise
your freedom of Speech you went to the town
square and spoke. This was what free speech
was all about.

Where is the town square in the 21st Century?
Where do we share our views?

Why Its right here at shashdot.
Yes its on the Internet.

Now we pay the ISP's for Speech.
Thats not the Free we should be talking about.
The ISP's want to block traffic they do not like, traffic that does not make them cold cash, we have to watch this closely.

The founding fathers could not have invisioned
that speech would stray into the gigahertz
bands. But if they had, Some of that bandwidth
would have been by law given to the people.
Other parts reserved for the public good, like
the military and fire/police etc. Come to think of it, a working radio infrastructure
would also be useful to the fire/police.

We should have the right to own
the infrastructure. We should
have the right to put a radio router
on our roof. And share the connectivity.
We are talking 300 megabit channels, in the GigH. frequency ranges. How many places do you go where there is not a house with in 5 miles.
Its like a Gun, you have to buy it and buy
ammo. The same is true for a radio router,
You have to buy it and feed it electricity.
But we should have the right.
Not be ignored by the FCC for the
good of the duopoly's/monopoly's.

A radio last milewould give ISP's a level playing field And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2 ISP's to provide backbone connections. It might even be better if the backbone was public as well. Its infrastructure like the Highways. It can make or break this country.

Advocates for public education once had to deal with basically the same arguments. And, it's certainly true that a free basic education is not a necessity in the same way that food, water, and shelter are--but very few today would dispute that it's a necessity in the sense that, without it, an individual is at a serious disadvantage in life. It's the same with the internet. Sure, you don't NEED it, but it's going to be very hard to live a normal life in an industrialized country in the future WITHOUT at least basic access to it.

Part of the problem here is that the language of "right" doesn't really capture what we ought to be capturing here. Webster's defines a right as "something to which one has a just claim." And that is the right way to look at things like employment discrimination, etc.

But when we start talking about universal access to services like broadband, healthcare, electric, I think it's much better to speak of it in terms of what's best for society. Simply put, our society as a whole is better off with a healthy work-force. Businesses will have more predictable costs, and the playing field between large and small companies, as well as government, will be leveled substantially, promoting innovation. Likewise, it promotes economic development for everyone to have electricity, not to mention public health--it's no accident that regular bathing became much more popular once everyone had a water heater. And, in a democracy, isn't the publics access to information equally vital? Isn't the ability for all members of society to communicate on a somewhat equal footing a useful social function? In other words, let's not talk about this as a moral question, but as a pragmatic one.

High speed Internet is infrastructure. Maybe it's not a "right". But if you don't have it available to all of our population and all of your competitors do, then watch out!

The libertarian side of me says that maybe providing broadband to all isn't necessarily a good thing. Likewise, maybe providing electricity to all back in 1900 wasn't necessarily good either. In the end, we didn't just provide poor people in the country with power. Instead, we provided an incentive for people to move out into the country, leading to sprawl, demand for more roads, foreign dependence on oil, etc... From a pure efficiency point-of-view, living in the city is much more efficient than living in the country. So providing all these services to the country leads to a very inefficient system. One of the reasons why infrastructure in cities is falling apart is because we use all of our resources building infrastructure out to every rural corner of the country, when really we should be concentrating on putting our resources where it affects the most people...in the cities.

Says Fleishman, "Electricity should go to people who had money, not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone...Like electricity, the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US.

Same arguments being thrown at health care. But every week I help load someone exercising their right not to have health care in an ambulance because they collapsed. Even loaded one of them into a helicopter for a $10,000 trip to the ER. Unless you're prepared to stand by and let people die for lack of emergency care, then what we're doing now doesn't work. Otherwise we end up taking them to ER, with no insurance and no real income and the prices go up for the rest of us.

You could make the same argument for electricity. I have a friend building a homestead in that bastion of liberal thought we call rural Georgia. The state made him get a rental this winter or they threatened to take his kids and put them in a foster home. The state of Georgia doesn't view electricity as a luxury if you have kids. Any one you teabaggers want to argue we don't really need child protective services? Go on, make that case. Demonstrate how far gone intellectually you really are.

As technology changes what in one time was a luxury becomes an integral part of everyday life. At some point there's a blurry line between necessity and luxury. Making those choices from the perspective of some Grizzly Adams isolationist doesn't really account for the real world consequences.

Electrification of the USA was not mainstream in some areas until the 1950s. My late grandmother in law told me that she didn't get electricity until well after the war. Frankly, for her, it wasn't even really that big of a deal to have it.

Bottom line is, a lot of people didn't get electricity not because it wasn't provided, but because they just simply didn't want to have it. It's like, if they were content with life without it, why have it?

It's the same deal with broadband. Everyone keeps saying that broadband should be everywhere, but, really, does everyone want it? There's enough of a sense that when choosing a place to live, the availability of broadband is a consideration. If people are choosing to do without it, well, maybe they just don't need it as much as the corps we work for would make them think they need it.

Except it's not universal healthcare. It's "universal what-uncle-sam-thinks-you-need care". The future of government run health care is the future of unelected bureaucrats deciding whether or not your treatment is "cost effective". Care that may have saved your life might not be covered if it doesn't meet the cost benefit analysis. The best and brightest will have less incentive to enter medicine when their salaries and reimbursements are slashed by Uncle Sam in an effort to rein in costs.

Uhh, What you have described is exactly what we have now with private health insurance. Unelected officials determining what care you get (check). Freedom of choice constrained (try to go to an out of network doctor. Being forced to purchase insurance, the insurance is paid for by your employer whether you want it or not. Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled. The same cost for one kid or eight? Once again we have that now.

I know your hatred for Obama is blinding you but could you please try to put some thought into what you write before you spew such easily refutable garbage.

Uhh, What you have described is exactly what we have now with private health insurance.

Not quite, as I currently have the choice to buy a high-deductible policy or even to go without insurance altogether. I won't have either of those choices under the bills currently under consideration in the Congress.

Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled.

That's up to your employer, not the government. My employer will pay me the money they put into health insurance if I ask them to do so. Of course I'll then be paying taxes on it, but that's the government's fault, not theirs.

I know your hatred for Obama is blinding you

Who said anything about Obama? I don't hate him or anybody. I think he'll make an awesome President -- just as soon as we get rid of Nancy Pelosi.

Let's say I have $1000. I can pay it for health insurance premiums, or I can go without health insurance and spend the money on whores instead. That's 'choice'.

Presumably though, when you're older and less indestructible, you'll want to enroll in health insurance though, right? The way insurance functions is that young healthy people are effectively subsidizing those less healthy, and then when those people eventually need that care, the new crop of young healthy insurance payers are effectively subsidizing their care. Keeping your money now to "spend on whores instead" short circuits that system, and puts you in the position of burdening everyone else by never having payed your share earlier.Unless of course you intend to never have insurance, and just die as soon as you get a little older and can't afford medical care. In that case, go for it.

There's a word for this... 'slavery'. What a great plan to make each generation a slave to the last generation, forced to pay for others' needs by the power of the state. Maybe we can amend the Constitution to clarify the 13th Amendment so that we all understand that slavery is ok so long as when we get older we're guaranteed to pass from 'slave' status to 'master' status... all we have to do is buy our freedom by having children and then we can pass the mantle of state-enforced servitude onto them.

A slave is forced to work. You can quit your job, you can live in homeless shelters, you can sit by the side of the road and count cars all day. Nobody will *force* you to work. Nobody will whip you for dropping out of your formerly productive life. Your lifestyle will suck, but to suggest that paying taxes, or insurance premiums, or any other fee is the same as slavery me

Why should people who are young and healthy have to subsidize those who aren't?

Do you intend to die as soon as you cease to be young and healthy? That condition is not going to last forever, and "I'll just stay in perfect health all my life" is a pretty stupid plan.

Health insurance is a for-profit industry. If the only people who subscribe to their services are making claims, where do you think the money to pay the claims comes from?

As for car insurance, the payouts for a healthcare insurer are inevitable, they aren't for a car insurance company. That's one of the reasons I hate the idea of "healthcare insurance". Most people don't make major claims against their car insurance company. Those that do are comparatively rare. In healthcare, as long as you have a plan, you can consistently be expected to make more claims against it as you grow older. Even if you live a healthy lifestyle, the likelyhood of needing care go up as you age, plain and simple.

If you really want nothing to do with that system, fine, but I suspect that as you get older, you'd be regretting having no healthcare option other than to pay for everything out of pocket.

Being forced to purchase insurance, the insurance is paid for by your employer whether you want it or not. Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled.

Every employer I've had has offered the option of health care, from the largest to the smallest. I'm sure there are some cases where what you describe holds true, but it's certainly not the rule.

Freedom of choice constrained (try to go to an out of network doctor

My insurance covers 80% of out of network, and 100% in-network. In addition, I have thousands of doctors and hospitals to choose from in network. Note also that choice doesn't always mean "you get to do anything you damned please". beyond that, I also have multiple plans available - both the subsidized insurance

There is already a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Yes, a nameless, faceless bureaucrat. But this guy works for the private health insurance company. He knows you get your insurance from your employer and you don't have the freedom to dump him and his company and switch your providers, without also ditching your job. You don't know what his pay, compensation and incentive plans are. How much he will make if he denies you coverage for this procedure or that medication.

The reason why the health reform as proposed by the Dems lacks popular is because, it does not go far enough. No chance to escape from whatever your employer dishes out in the name of health care. No recourse if your employer decides suddenly to drop health coverage from the compensation. Have to just bear it if your "contribution" is increased, your copay is increase and your doctor is dropped from the list of preferred providers.

No relief to the employers either. They are competing with Europe and Japan and their competitors do not have to pay for health care. If GM did not have to pay 2000$ per vehicle to provide for health care for its 1 million employees and retirees between 1990 and 2004, it could have competed effectively with the imports.

Already there is public option in so many areas where the private sector refuses to serve. National Flood Insurance Program to insure homes that can not get private insurance. Postal service to serve mail and parcels to places where FedEx and UPS wont go. The examples are endless.

Funny you should mention the competitive disadvantage US companies have because they have to pay American employees' healthcare, because it's actually even worse than that! Many US companies pay for all their employees' healthcare regardless of where they live.

I live in Australia but work for a major US software company, which laughably gives me the best of both worlds but must be a tremendous drain on my company's bottom line. Here's the situation...

Australia has universal healthcare. The system works like this:

- Healthcare is free or very cheap via the universal public healthcare system.

- This universal system is funded by a surcharge on top of your standard income tax, but only if you make a moderate to high amount of money. Poorer people don't pay a cent, and still benefit from the system. Wealthy people pay essentially 1 or 1.5% extra income tax which isn't a huge deal in the scheme of things.

- However, you can avoid some or all of the surcharge if you take out private health insurance. The existence of a public/universal health care system does not mean there is no private option, and indeed Australia has a thriving private health insurance industry. Thus, those that can afford private healthcare are encouraged to purchase it, because it reduces the drain on government money, and also means you don't have to pay the healthcare-related surcharge on your taxes.

Australian employers therefore do not, and have never, paid for healthcare. Healthcare is NOT tied to your employer, even if you have private insurance (you pick a company and buy that insurance yourself, just like car insurance or house insurance). And if you don't have private insurance... the public system will still cover you.

However, the American company I work for, apparently because it is too complicated to set up different HR regimes for each country, pays for private health insurance for me and my whole family, even though that is virtually unheard of for companies in Australia to do. So basically - my company pays for a (expensive high level) health plan for me, I enjoy the coverage of that plan... AND I make a saving in my taxes because I'm avoiding the surcharge for the public system (because I am covered by a private fund and not draining the public one).

Great for me! But wow, that must cost my company a lot to do that everywhere in the world, when really they only need to do it for their American employees... lol.

Who gave you the authority to question Australian constitution? Australia is a democracy, pretty decent one at that. If they want to tax the rich 1.5% more to provide for universal health care it is their right. If you think that is a bad idea and that will sap the enthusiasm of the whole population, demotivate them to earn money and in general lead to general lethargy and lack of industriousness, you should rejoice. You would be able to show 10 years down the line how moribund Australian economy has becom

The *entire* idea of universal health care is to provide a bare minimum level of health care to *everyone*. A level which should be minimum enough that those with the resources will go elsewhere.

That bare minimum level of care already exists. No ER can turn you away. Charity hospitals and clinics exist with the express mandate of serving those that can't pay. Even most other institutions will treat those that can't pay up front -- you'll just wind up indebted to them afterwards.

Just like the "universal school system" in which public schools are for everyone but those with the resources tend to send their kids to private schools.

Bad example. Public education in this country is a joke. It's held hostage to the demands of a small constituency (teachers unions) while producing worse and worse results year after year. Taking the money we spend on

Fact is, US healthcare is more expensive than healthcare just about anywhere else on the planet, including countries where doctors-salaries are higher than they are in the USA. Fact is, despite this you score badly, not only on longevity, but also on stuff like 5-year survival-rate of various cancers, risk of dying in labour, etc.

And how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address the underlying structure of our health care system. In fact they take everything that's wrong with it and codify it into law.

Demonstrably, mind you, not according to some theory. You -actually- end up paying more, and getting less.

Again, how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address costs.

Yes, I realize this doesn't match your map, so thus

You didn't answer a single one of my points. Will I lose the choice I currently have to purchase a high-deductible policy or go without health insurance? Yes, I will. Will my insurance company be forced to charge me the same rate as they charge a chain smoker? Yes, they will.

Pointing out that the current system sucks != justification for why I should support the current legislative proposals. When will you people understand that?

The key difference between broadband and health care being that with health care, some people absolutely need it to continue to live. I know this is going to be a very unpopular statement on Slashdot but you can live without broadband. It's possible. Some of us old timers did it for many years back in the day. I'm all for my taxpayers helping out people to an extent but there's a line that will be crossed sometime. Your sentiment could be expanded to everyone needing a car so let's setup a plan to make

I prefer the right to access to health care, however the one item left out of most every discussion I see is the requirement to actually lead a healthy life. Sorry, but why should the majority of people pay for other people's health problems caused by known bad habits, like smoking, drinking, and over eating?

The real problem with health care is that too many people willingly take on a car payment and exorbitant cell plan yet are offended they hav

The real problem with health care is that too many people willingly take on a car payment and exorbitant cell plan yet are offended they have to pay to take care of themselves. Too many put more effort in taking care of their cars than their own health.

Sums up my views pretty well. I have a hard time finding sympathy for people who claim they "can't afford basic health care" when they could obviously afford things like a computer, jewelry, a fancy cellphone, beer/liquor/cigarettes/recreational drugs, or designer clothes. Apparently they stopped teaching about needs vs. wants in elementary school or something, cause it seems to me that your first priorities should be providing for the basic necessities: water, food, shelter, healthcare. Only after thos

I lived on a street once, down in Florida, that had a dozen houses. It was across the street from a new subdivision. Our street did NOT have cable service, either TV or Internet. The subdivision did. I lived on the corner, and the main junction box was across the street from me, MAYBE 40 feet from my house. The cable company refused to run cable to our house, saying that most people on our street already had satellite dishes, it wasn't profitable. No, I couldn't pay for it, they just refused to do it at all. They can do that.

The electric companies CANNOT REFUSE to run you power. They can bill you the tariffed rate, which was set by the gov't, but if you are willing to pay it is ILLEGAL for them to refuse to run the lines. Ditto with telephone service or any tariffed variation like a T-1 line.